Sanctuary-City Policy Advocacy and the Production of Sanctuary-Power in San Francisco, California

503 Pages·2016·4.83 MB·English

In the Spirit of Sanctuary:
Sanctuary-City Policy Advocacy and the Production of Sanctuary-Power
in San Francisco, California

By

Peter Mancina

Dissertation

Submitted to the Faculty of the

Graduate School of Vanderbilt University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

In

Anthropology

August, 2016

Nashville, Tennessee

Approved: Date:

_____________________________________________________________________ ________________________
Edward F. Fischer, Ph.D.

_____________________________________________________________________ ________________________
Lesley Gill, Ph.D.

_____________________________________________________________________ ________________________
John Janusek, Ph.D.

_____________________________________________________________________ ________________________
Katharine M. Donato, Ph.D.
To my loving partner Zina, my daughters Bea and Evla,
and my parents Mike and Maureen

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work would not have been possible without the financial support of the
National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant,
the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Dissertation Fieldwork
Grant, or the Vanderbilt College of Arts and Sciences Social Science Dissertation
Fellowship.
This work would also not have been possible without the support of my
dissertation committee members Dr. Lesley Gill, Dr. Katharine Donato, and Dr. John
Janusek. I am especially indebted to my committee Chair Dr. Edward F. Fischer who
has been an endless source of encouragement, support, and guidance in completing
this dissertation. Not only did Dr. Fischer help train me, open academic doors for me
prior to the research, and encourage me to publish preliminary portions of this
dissertation, but he always trusted in my judgment to explore entirely new lines of
research which ultimately led to the unforeseen focus of this study. For that, I will
always be grateful. I would also not have been able to complete this dissertation
without the encouragement, friendship, and advice of Kathleen Coll, and the
kindness of Els de Grauuw in helping connect me to certain individuals in City Hall.
Thank you to Norbert Ross and George and Jane Collier for reading drafts of my
research design proposal prior to beginning the study and to Randy Lippert and
Sean Rehaag for helping significantly in reading and providing editorial feedback for
initial versions of Chapter 2, “Birth of a Sanctuary City”.
Many thanks are due to The Graduate Theological Union Archives, the
Dominican Sisters of San Rafael, Chris Doan and the Presentation Sisters of San
Francisco, the San Francisco Archdiocese Archives, El Tecolote, the University of San
Francisco Library, the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, the San Francisco
Public Library History Department, and the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San
Francisco for allowing me to consult their archival collections.
Special thanks are also due to sanctuary movement organizers Eileen Purcell,
Lana Dalberg, Ignatius Bau, Judy Liteky, and Sister Kathleen Healy for not only
providing me with personal documents from the sanctuary movement of the 1980s
but also for explaining to me the history of the San Francisco sanctuary movement
and their work to create sanctuary city policies. Also, thanks are due to Revered
Debbie Lee of the San Francisco Interfaith Coalition on Immigration for inviting me
to her coalition meetings where I was able to connect with the faith community and
with contacts in San Francisco City Hall.
I am forever grateful for the help of San Francisco District Supervisor David
Campos and his legislative aides Sheila Chung Hagan and Hillary Ronen. Their
supervision of my work as an intern, their explanation of sanctuary city issues and
the municipal system, and their willingness to open doors for me was crucial for my
ability to understand how municipal sanctuary city practices and municipal
deportation practices are created and maintained. Also large thanks are due to
District Supervisor John Avalos, and his legislative aides Frances Hsieh, Jeremy
Pollack, and Raquel Redondiez who allowed me to participate in the sanctuary city
iii
policy-making process, and to Public Defender Jeff Adachi and Patti Lee for
explaining the intricacies of the juvenile justice system.
This dissertation is in great debt to individuals at the San Francisco Human
Rights Commission for explaining to me the process of sanctuary violation
investigations and the role of the Commission with regard to sanctuary. In
particular, I owe a special thanks to Executive Director Theresa Sparks,
Commissioner Michael Pappas, Zoë Polk, Sheryl Cowan, and Taraneh Moayed.
Thanks are also due to Office of Civic Engagement and Immigrant Affairs Director
Adrienne Pon and Commissioner Felix Fuentes. Director Pon was very kind to
facilitate setting up meetings for me with various department heads. I owe a special
thanks to Police Chief Greg Suhr for allowing me to attend community police
academy courses and to do ride-alongs with Mission Station police officers.
Huge thanks are due to the San Francisco Immigrant Rights Defense
Committee (SFIRDC) for allowing me to accompany and assist them in the
grassroots campaign to pass sanctuary city policy. Coalition members provided
crucial perspectives on sanctuary city policies, endless inspiration, and the
opportunity to witness what it takes for a community to confront the federal
deportation apparatus through the legislative process. A special thanks to Reverend
Richard Smith who at a protest at the San Francisco Immigration and Customs
Enforcement building first invited me to attend meetings with an organizing
committee of a SFIRDC coalition member, the San Francisco Organizing Project
(SFOP). At that SFOP meeting, SFOP organizers gave me a community-organizing
role in the campaign to pass the sanctuary-inspired TRUST Act in California and
subsequently vouched for me to participate in the closed strategy meetings of the
San Francisco Immigrant Rights Defense Committee. However, the biggest thanks go
to Angela Chan, who invited me to SFIRDC meetings, largely guided my organizing
and research work in the coalition, and answered an innumerable amount of
questions I had about the coalition’s various campaigns to legislate sanctuary city
policy. The dissertation would also not have been completed without the help of
coalition member Renee Saucedo, who gave me a volunteer job and brought me into
the organizational meetings of the San Francisco Day Labor Program and La
Colectiva de Mujeres, both SFIRDC member organizations.
Finally, this dissertation greatly benefited from the attention of Zina Bozzay,
Angela Chan, Francisco Ugarte, and Jon Rodney who read initial drafts and provided
very helpful feedback.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………………………………… ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………………… iii

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………………………… x

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………………………….. xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS, NOMENCLATURE, AND SYMBOLS………………………… xii

Chapter

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1

Sanctuary-Power and Governmental Practice ……………………………………… 5
The Study of Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary Practice……………………………. 8
Seeing Like a Sanctuary City: The Anthropology of the State and Policy.. 22
Organization of the Dissertation …………………………………………………………… 29

2. The Birth of a Sanctuary City: Governmental Sanctuary in San Francisco
From 1980-1990 …………………………………………………………………………………… 34

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………… 34
San Francisco Political Economy and Immigrant Workers…………………… 35
The San Francisco Sanctuary Movement and the Cultivation of
Sanctuary as an Ethic of Municipal Governance …………………….…………….. 37
The Responsibilities of Sanctuary Movement Refugee Sponsors……. 41
Governmentalizing Sanctuary: The City of Refuge Resolution of 1985….. 44
Institutionalizing Governmental Sanctuary: The 1989 Sanctuary City
Ordinance…………………………………………………………………………..…………………. 51
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 57

3. “Securing” the Sanctuary City to Safeguard Funding: Sanctuary City
Reforms from 1991-2004 ……………………………………………………………………... 58

Introduction ………………………………..……………………………………………………….. 58
Sanctuary and the Threat of Losing Federal Funds for Policing: 1992
and 1993 Sanctuary Ordinance Amendments ………………………………………. 59
Accessing the Sanctuary City in the Age of Proposition 187,
1994-2000………………………………………………………………………………………………74
Governmental Sanctuary in the Age of Homeland Security, 2001-2004...
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………..…... 88
v
4. Departmentalizing Sanctuary…………………………………………………….………….. 90

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………. 90
The Era of Increased ICE Raids …………………………………………………………. 91
Funding the Sanctuary City …………………………………………………………………… 97
The Sanctuary City Initiative ……………………………………………………………… 101
Department-Specific Sanctuary Protocol Development ……………….. 110
Training City Employees in the New Policies………………………………… 119
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 130

5. The Sanctuary City Picks a Sacrificial Lamb: The Executive Branch’s
Attack on Undocumented Juveniles…………………………………………………….. 131

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………...…………….. 131
Processing Undocumented Youth in the Juvenile Justice System….……....134
Stopping the Juvenile Probation’s International Family Reunification
Practice ……………………………………………………………………………………..……….. 145
The Executive Branch Sacrifices the Children to Save the
Sanctuary City……………………………………..………………………………………………..150
The Immigrant Rights Community Response………………………………..…….. 167
Seizing the Moment to Strike at the Sanctuary City……………………………… 174
Using the Sanctuary Ordinance to Deport Youth…………………………………..183
The Immigrant Community Response to the JPD Protocols Document... 190
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 191

6. Unmasking Political Will and Laying the Foundations for Legislating Due
Process for All Youth …………………………………………………………………………... 194

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………….……. 194
The Birth of the San Francisco Immigrant Rights Defense Committee.... 194
The Juvenile Probation Commission Feigns Concern ………………..………… 197
Organizing the Sanctuary City Officials .……………………………………..……….. 199
Resolving to Ensure Due Process for All Youth…………………..………………... 205
The Board Votes on the Resolution on the Rights of the Child……………... 213
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 220

7. Living In Fear in the Sanctuary City: The Impact of Immigration
Enforcement on Residents Regardless of Immigration Status……………... 220

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………... 220
The Development of Pro and Anti-Sanctuary Discourse……………………… 221
HRC/IRC Joint Hearing on Immigration Enforcement in
San Francisco ……………………………………………………………………………………… 226
Documenting Immigrant Fear …………………………………………………..………… 232
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………… 238
vi
8. Hiring to Ensure the Safety of the Sanctuary City ………………………………...240

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………..……… 240
SFIRDC Works with the Board of Supervisors to Prepare an
Amendment to the Sanctuary Ordinance…………………………………………… 240
The Sanctuary City Needs a New Police Chief ……………………………………… 248
Mesa’s 287(g) Program ………………………………………………………………………. 253
Mayor Newsom’s Decision…………………………………………………………………… 261
The Grassroots Legislative Campaign Grows Beyond SFIRDC …………….. 264
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 268

9. Delaying ICE Referrals and Contesting Legal Advice: The Introduction
of the Due Process for Youth Sanctuary Ordinance Amendment...…..….. 269

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 269
The Spectacle of Banality in the Introduction of Sanctuary Legislation.. 270
Igniting Legal Fears, Breaching Confidentiality: The Mayor Leaks the
City Attorney’s Cautionary Legal Memo on the Youth Amendment……… 278
Competing Legal Advice: SFIRDC Lawyers Counter the City Attorney’s
Legal Arguments ………………………………………………………………………………… 287
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………….. 294

10. Arguments for Providing Governmental Sanctuary for Youth………………295

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 295
Ensuring Access to Education for All through the Youth Sanctuary
Ordinance Amendment ………………………………………………………………………. 295
Arguing for the Youth Sanctuary Amendment …………………………………….. 304
The Constitutionality Argument………………………………………………………. 306
The Functional Municipal System Argument…………………………………… 311
The Ethical Argument……………………………………………………………………… 317
The Religious Argument………………………………………………………………….. 320
Contesting Due Process for Youth……………………………………………………….. 321
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 326

11. Legislating Due Process for Youth…………………………...………………………….. 327

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………...….. 327
The First Vote ……………………………………………………………………………………... 327
The Second Vote …………………………………………………………………………………. 337
The Mayor’s Veto…………………………………………………………………………………. 340
Overriding the Mayor’s Veto……………………………………………………………….. 343
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 345

12. Implementation Thwarted………………………………………………………………….. 346
vii
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………... 346
Reigning in Mayoral Authority…………………………………………………………….. 346
The Community Loses Faith in the Human Rights Commission …………... 350
Enforcing the Youth Sanctuary Amendment to Restore Democracy……. 353
Defining the Role and Power of the City Attorney through
Sanctuary City Implementation…………………………………………………………... 356
The Juvenile Probation Department Reaffirms its Refusal to
Implement the Youth Sanctuary Amendment……………………………………… 361
LGBT Organizations Weigh in on Sanctuary Implementation ……………... 363
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………365

13. The Juvenile Probation Department and the Mayor’s Office Face the
Community………………………………………………..………………………………………… 367

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………...………….. 367
The Accountability Hearing…………………………………………………………………. 367
Juvenile Probation Speaks ……………………………………………………………… 368
SFIRDC Responds to Chief Sifferman……………………………………………….. 376
The Mayor’s Office Faces the Community………………………………………… 382
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 386

14. Investigating and (Not) Disciplining Violations of Sanctuary…….…………. 387

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………... 387
Office of Citizen Complaints Sustained Allegations of Non-Compliance
with Department General Order 5.15………………………………………………….. 387
The News Delivery Man and His Employee ……………………………………... 391
The Woman Who Sought Help from the Police to Enforce a
Restraining Order……………………………………………………………………………. 393
The Man Who Made a California Rolling Stop …………………………………. 395
The Policy Failure of DGO 5.15 ………..………………………………………………….. 398
Human Rights Commission Sanctuary Ordinance Violation
Investigations……………………………………………………………………………………… 400
The Only HRC Sanctuary Ordinance Violation Complaint to be
Investigated in 25 years………………………………………………………………………. 405
HRC Mediation and Investigation……………………………………………………. 416
HRC Issues Findings and Recommendations…………………………………… 417
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………… 420

15. Conclusion: Reflections on Sanctuary-power…………………………………….... 421

Appendix. Methods, Data Analysis, and Overview of Research Sites………….. 430

Methods………………………………………………………………………………………..…….. 430
Archival research and semi-structured interviews on the history
viii
of the sanctuary movement and governmental sanctuary in the
1980s and 1990s……………………………………………………………………………. 430
Document Collection……………………………………………………………………… 432
Video Collection_……………………………………………………………………………. 437
Participant Observation…………………………………………………………………. 437
Semi-Structured Interviews…………………………………………………………… 441
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………………………. 443
Research Sites……………………………………………………………………………………... 443

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………………………. 447

NOTES………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 464

ix
LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. SCAAP Funds Awarded to San Francisco 2000-2008………………………………. 182

x